The Donors Comment Page

we are waiting for the indian currency to be functional in order to donate whole heartedly,,
The facility for small donors to leave a comment and have it posted on your web site is a great idea and very motivating for donors, like me. What would be even nicer if the page could be searchable so I could find my donation and my comment. This is a possible use of some of the site development money you are raising.

A further fund raising option would be a facility to enable the donor to email the record of his donation with his comment to selected friends with a request that they too donate. This further facility would I believe, (as a professional fund raiser) really increase you income.

Roland.Hodson@gmail.com

I can speak from experience that if you allow public posting of comments, even from the smallest of donations, there will be a flood of one-yen donations with comment of, "So, Jimbo, how was Rachel in front of the mirror?" We probably don't want that. -- Thekohser 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Information

The site is helpful but they dont give the publisher or the author of the article.

Generally, the Wikimedia Foundation is the publisher (even though they are protected by Section 230 from the covenants that publishers are otherwise held to), and the author (or community of authors) of the various articles can be found on the article "history" tab at the top of the page window. -- Thekohser 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Currency option

why dont i see the rupee as a currency to donate ,very dissapointing :(

This is definitely a goal, it's just not easy to implement at the moment. Cbrown1023talk 15:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Surplus?

I just saw your presentation for FY 08-09. As far as I could
see you reported $1.7m surplus from FY 07-08. Now, you are
predicting another surplus of $1.3m. Does it mean that at the
end of the FY 08-09 you will have total surplus of $3m?

What is the rationale for that? Why do you need so huge surplus
(compared to total revenues)?

I'm very sorry if I misunderstood your presented data. I just
asking for explanation.

Thank you in advance,
Uros Nedic, Serbia
urosn (at) beotel (dot) rs

Thank you for your question. Yes, you are reading that we show an under-spending in 07-08 of $1.7MM and and 08-09, intend to spend $1.3MM less than revenue.

There are several reasons that we would like to have surplus funds available such as:

Current economic climate: Given the current economic climate, there is a lot of uncertainty. Naturally, many people (including past donors and would-be donors) are cutting back on expenses. While we were pleasantly surprised by the response to our online fundraising campaign, we don't know how the next campaign will fare. We always want to be conservative when depending on the generosity of others. If we have a shortfall in the future, we will be able to utilize these funds rather than cutting basic operating expenses which in turn could affect the site.

Desire to expand and improve beyond basic operations: There are many areas where we wish to expand, improve etc. such as expanding reach and participation and improving accuracy and perceptions of accuracy. Right now, much of our expense budget is for basic operations. We want to take on more, but to do so, creates more expenses for us. We don't want to spend what we don't have.

Development of an Endowment, etc.: Ultimately, we'd like to develop an Endowment or other investment vehicle from which we could fund part of our Operations annually. If we don't have to use this money for contingencies, we can think about using it for something like an Endowment.

I've removed the tag, it didn't really make sense in the situation. Cbrown1023talk 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong date on German "Lokale Sektionen"-page"

The date of registration for the Polish chapter on the German language page Lokale Sektionen is wrong. Instead of "18. November 2008" there has to be "15. November 2005" (see [1] resp. [2]). --92.72.141.29 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC) (Contact me in Wikipedia as User "Duschgeldrache2".)

We have "18 November 2005" on the English page, changed it to that. Thanks for the fix. Cbrown1023talk 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add a link to Local chapters

I had great difficulties to find info about the local organisations called Local chapters. In particular the one for Belgium. I would suggest to add a sentence on page [[[:wmf:Local_chapters|Local chapters]]] just after the text "If you have questions about local chapters or want to start one in your country, please don't hesitate to contact the Chapters committee" like "For more information about the Local Chapters see also [[3]].". This will make a crosslink between the category sequence in wikimediafoundation.org Cat:All -> cat:WM Organisation and the category sequence in meta.wikimedia.org "Categories" -> "WM Foundation" -> "WM management" -> "Local Chapters" Regards, Wouterhagens 14:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've linked it to the Wikimedia Chapters page, it should include all of the same information which is available in that category. diff --Az1568 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sudden inclusion of 'Sponsored Links' results in lost user

For all its many merits, Wiki has lost this user by the sudden and forceful inclusion of a 'Sponsored Links' frame whenever accessing content. An unobtrusive placement (bottom of page, for example) would have been a far more acceptable choice for this user.

Um, there are no "sponsored links" on any Wikimedia Foundation page. Where are you looking, and what browser add-ons have you installed lately? - jredmond 17:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia.org

There is a typo on the opening page, where it list all of the language options, saying Free Encyclopedia in the various languages.
The polish heading states "Wolna encyklopedia". The translation of wolna is free, but it is free in the sense of not being enslaved. The word you are looking for is "darmowa" which also translated to free, but in the sense of, it costs you nothing.

Regards,

Andrew Legg

poland755@hotmail.com

Wolna also means that everyonce can edit it and it's published under a free license. In Polish we have "wolne oprogramowanie" (open software), "wolna" can mean that people are free to edit it, so changing it to "darmowa" would change meaning to free as you don't need cash to edit it. "Wolna" can also mean "slow", but it's correct only when we have problems with servers ;) So it's correct and very good translation, cause one word mean few things and every meaning have something to do with Wikipedia. Herr Kriss 19:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, "wolna encyklopedia" is an official translation used everywhere on pl.wiki, even on the main page: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strona_g%C5%82%C3%B3wna It's in my opinion a proper meaning, cause it means "free content (wolna tresc)", and not "free of charge" which would mean "darmowa tresc". The core idea of Wikipedia content is that you are free to use it (which translates to "dowolnie"), but under some conditions. Also "darmowa" would not covey the meaning "free to edit" - in Polish "kazdemu wolno edytowac", though it's not the best style. Regards, Rdrozd 19:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

While "darmowa encyklopedia" would certainly do justice the narrow meaning construed and foisted upon us by the plaintiff, as was already sanely observed by Herr Kriss and Rdrozd, changing to the proposed string would rob the <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">whole of its other, layered, equally important meanings, one which is the core truth: anyone can edit and anyone can edit it freely, without allegiance to any flag or ideology.

Nothing is broken here. "Darmozjadowa encyklopedia" or "Encyklepadlo dla wiecznie glosujach i zwasnionych darmozjadow" would also be apt and spot-on, constituting conceivable precise translations of what "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" either really means or signifies.

Polish readers might appreciate the subtleties of my proposed alternatives, which I leave in the original, so as not to despoil their charm. Alternatively, the wikipedistically adventrous, those who fancy themselves as adepts at milking the free cows of machine translation and dictionary lookup in the local ambient, hop to it. --Mareklug 09:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiHow model of fundraising via opt-out ads

Wikihow, see wikipedia:WikiHow, uses an opt-out ad model, and pays for its operations with ad money. See: wikinews:Jack Herrick, WikiHow founder interviewed by Wikinews (Jan. 31, 2009 article). Non-registered readers normally see ads, but can opt out of ads. WikiHow says they "were the first high traffic website to offer a 'hide ads' button." Readers can block ads for 24 hours by clicking the button. Those who are registered and logged in do not see ads. See: wikiHow:Why Hide Ads - wikiHow. WikiHow has over 50,000 articles, and had 14.3 million unique readers in February 2009. [4].

Hi

Hi,

Apologies but I can't find a way to comment on the Wikipedia website so I'm placing my comment here. I have used your site for years but I just joined and donated. Why today? I needed to know if a grass, sedge, or rush could be considered a forb -- and found the answer with one click, in the first line.

I have two design comments.

1. The five tabs at the top of this page should contain a sixth. "Donate" Simplicity works. I had to look around to give my 30 dollars.

2. After donating the PayPal page should offer a re-direct back to Wikipedia (or whereever) visibly and directly. If it was there, I couldn't find it.

Thanks for everyone's good efforts. Best, markmac28

Maybe the "Donate" link in the sidebar can be moved to the navigation section of the sidebar. Maybe between "Main page" and "Goings-on".

Maybe this discussion can be copied to the talk page for MediaWiki:Sidebar. I don't currently have the energy or time though to follow up on this. --Timeshifter 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Volunteering

The volunteering opportunities page doesn't ask for people to volunteer with much. Wouldn't it be better saying something more like "Want to help the Wikimedia Foundation? Edit Wikipedia, upload images to Commons, translate things, help out at your local chapter, offer your specific skill set to us, ... BTW, we need people specifically for this, this and this, urgently." ? Mike Peel 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of Living People Resolution & Commons

The Wikimedia Foundation Resolution:Biographies of living people has generated some discussion on Wikimedia Commons. Is the neutrality intended to apply to all individual images on Commons? For example, are all non-neutral editorial cartoons or caricatures depicting living public figures prohibited by this resolution? (An example of an image deletion request where the BLP resolution has been invoked Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg reopen -- note in this particular case this is only one of multiple issues under discussion regarding the image). Some claification of how this resolution applies to contents of the Commons would be helpful. -- Infrogmation 02:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and link. -- Infrogmation 21:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Indians cannot donate in INR

Wiki team, In case you are not aware, lots of Indians access,use,benefit,are aware of WIkipedia. Also there has been enough press about how you are a non-profit org. Many of my friends woul dbe interested in donation online. But there is no option to pay by the INR currency. Please consider adding that.

We are trying. We are working with various payment providers to give that exact option. At this time, we hope to have INR donation functionality in time for the 2009 Annual Fundraiser. Rand Montoya 18:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you to everyone who contributes to info for Wikipedia. So glad you are in existence.
Penny

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please allow me to extend a sincere thank you for taking time out of your day to write us. We appreciate your kind words and are thrilled that you enjoy Wikipedia. We hope to continue to live up to your expectations and that you continue to find the site a useful resource. If you are interested in becoming involved in the site yourself, please see our tutorial at Wikipedia:Tutorial which contains all the help you need to get started. Cbrown1023talk 00:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Viquipèdia

ukrainian version of FAQ

Please add ukrainian version of FAQ from this page. --A1 17:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi A1, thanks for helping out with translations. Unfortunately, that request has been closed for a while now and as a result, the source text on meta is no longer current. So we really aren't able to publish that translation since it does not match the current text on the FAQ. Sorry. --Az1568 (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

EN-WP-COUNT Template is working strangely

On page [6] you can see that the template EN-WP-COUNT is not pre-visualized correctly showing a link to a non-existing page. Thus if you follow to [7] where this source is finally published you'll notice that the template is working fine.
Sol 13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's intentional, they're on separate wikis. The page on Meta is just the translation workspace, not all templates will work properly. Cbrown1023talk 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Benefactors

On the foundation website there is a benefactors page. That page lists recent predominantly financial donation sorted by dollar amount.

More and more institutions do contribute content on a massive scale to Wikipedia and other projects. Should there be recognition of these contributions as well? Examples includes

I have no problem with contributors being recognized for their work if that is what they want, but I don't think the appropriate place is the Benefactors page. The page is to give recognition to donors who otherwise would remain completely unknown except to the fundraising staff. It is also a fairly standard practice among fundraising institutions to have an area that gives a shout out to their funders. An opera, museum or symphony brochure, for example, will have several pages just devoted to their donors. At the same time, they also have several other pages devoted to the artists and the people that make their content happen. The two areas exist separately, most likely for easy reference.

Also, before recognition is given to institutions that do contributions on a massive scale to Wikipedia, other questions need to be answered. For one, how does one determine "massive scale"? Why do only institutions get recognition and not individual contributors? How would this work with the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy?

@Anya. Thanks for your reply. I did *not* suggest to put such a list on the benefactors page. Individual contributors get recognized through history of articles. I single out institutions brave enough to unlock say hundreds of thousands of digitized material on files. Their contribution is hardly a secret, to the contrary. So why I would want this? To encourage other institutions to unlock their material. Dedalus 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

@Dedalus. I'm sorry for misunderstanding, thanks for following up. Here's my question: before publicly giving these institutions any special recognition, how possible is it to contact them and ask them if they want to be recognized? It's in the WMF donor privacy policy to not disclose names unless specifically told to do so. It's just something to consider. Anya 23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I do understand 'privacy' concerns individual ('private') persons, not institutions. Nonetheless, those institutional donations are most times accompanied by press releases ... And, I didn't ask for a discussions, but for contributions to a list of known institutional donations. Dedalus 19:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So it seems that everyone agrees wmf:Benefactors isn't the best place, but I definitely think a page like this would be cool (if only for us to remember all the places we've worked with ;-)). I'm going to poke Mathias and Jennifer to this page, they're probably the two best people to comment. Cbrown1023talk 00:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am in favour of listing organisations and institutions that have done things we like. As a provisional title, I would go with Free Content Role Models or something like that. -- Mathias Schindler 11:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Logo reuse

Can I use Wikimedia Commons,Wikipedia,Wikisource Logo?--210.222.216.242 08:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you cannot because those logos are copyrighted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

...and/or trademarked. If you feel you should be able to use them, please contact Mike Godwin at mgodwinwikimedia.org Cbrown1023talk 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation of resolutions, our projects

It would be useful to have Resolutions and Policies translated into the core Wikimedia languages. Especially those that all projects are expected to know about and abide by. The partial translations linked from the top of the page are significantly out of date. Other basic information pages such as wikimedia:Our projects are regularly out of date in major languages; but don't have a notice at the top about this - which can give visitors a misleading impression. Should they also have a standard 'dated' template? Is there an automated mechanism for guessing when an original has been updated and flagging translations as stale?

Use of talk pages

Is there an existing thread about making talk pages [un]editable on the foundation wiki? It makes it difficult to carry on discussions about how a certain page should look or be used over time.

If all talk is meant to be on this one Meta page, should the historical discussions be moved there as well? Some wikimedia: pages have talk, and some do not. It would be clearer if all talk pages were opened up, or all redirected here. -- sj| translate | + 09:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Terms of Use" improvement

The Wikipedia "Terms of Use" are the shortest I have ever witnessed in my twenty years of Internet use. While this may be a good thing in that it does not scare off the "little people" who contribute, it does not level the playing field where larger constituencies have to deal with the reality of other large constituencies in the pursuit and expression of truth. It really would be helpful if a few caveats were listed in the extraordinarily short Wikipedia "Terms of Use". The most beneficial is if there was listed a notice that all users had to abide by the Wikipedia "policies and guidelines" and "dispute resolution" policy. It would also be helpful if many of the other "scary" possibilities dealing with Wikipedia were listed or noticed in the "Terms of Use" policy. Even with foreknowledge that there was a dispute resolution option available, it is difficult to find. It really needs to be listed or at least acknowledged in the "Terms of Use" (or other primary document).

Wikipedia, in its desire to make knowledge available to everyone, needs to be more concerned that it is manipulated every day by Established Entities seeking to preserve false pretenses that serve their purposes. By making dispute resolution a more prominent part of Wikipedia, the impartial aspect of Wikipedia's self described mandate would serve an important social purpose. Even if the dispute resolution required that both sides of an issue were required to be reported and left for the reader to decide, it would be better than leaving the reader with an impression that there was no controversy over the subject or what the controversy was about. Simply knowing that there is a controversy, inspires youth to resolve said controversies through research.

In summary, all this idealism is for naught if Wikipedia makes it hard to present controversial information in a neutral format. If others are able to edit controversial entries and there is no "readily available" means to counter such malicious edits, Wikipedia has failed in its self described mandate. Virtually every software program and every Internet web site offering a service has a terms of service agreement that deals with abuse. Yet, Wikipedia does not offer a dispute resolution clause or link much less one about its policies and guidelines in its terms of service. You say be bold, yet boldness gets slapped down. I have navigated enough of Wikipedia to figure out that there are solutions to my problems – you just make it so hard to find! Try being on the receiving end of Wikipedia sometime. Without the proper protection, it is indeed scary!

falsche Sprache !!

There is no Austrian Wikipedia, that's a portal page designed by Wikimedia Österreich (WMAT). From what I know, it showcases the other regional languages spoken in Austria in addition to the official language (German). According to w:Languages of Austria, that includes Czech. Cbrown1023talk 13:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unorderly spelt words in TAMIL version of the site

happy to see your site in Tamil language. but the letters in tamil version of your site is not in right order. please take this in consideration. thanking you.

Good to hear that you like the Tamil sites. However, like all of our other projects, our sites in the Tamil language are set up so that you can edit the pages yourself; you don't need to come here to complain. - jredmond 21:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Donating

Hello,

I find your site to be very informative and thank you for keeping it up and running. I would like to know however, are you always asking for donations constantly? If so where can the page be found to make a donation? 75.71.124.249 00:58 8 September 2009 (UTC)

General disclaimer

wmf:General disclaimer is empty. General disclaimer here softly directs to en.wp. The last disclaimer is about the content of the main/article namespace on en.wp. Shouldn't there be a more specific disclaimer about what we're discussing here on meta? Shouldn't there be a disclaimer on the foundation site? Actually i got here after viewing the pages on strategyapps and strategy ... Dedalus 11:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated the link and undeleted the redirect. Merci for pointing it out! Cbrown1023talk 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on wikimediafoundation.org pages

Please note: This page is concerned with the website http://wikimediafoundation.org, the official website of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, which runs over 700 websites. For comments and feedback to those websites, it is preferred that you go to them directly.
Hi,

I tried to enter a donation of $25 and then chose "donate using Paypal." I got an error message saying "You must enter a valid amount." YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT EASY TO DONATE!! Also, I really had to hunt around for a place to send you this feedback. Why does the first page say "Questions?" (highlighted) and then not allow you to enter a question? YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT EASY TO ASK QUESTIONS LIKE THIS ONE! I want to help, but like most people I'm busy!!!
Please correct and get back to me so I CAN GIVE YOU MONEY.

Sorry to hear you ran into trouble donating! Would you mind giving me some more information? What is the URL of the page you tried to donate? What browser/operating system are you using?

About the questions part, that should link to the FAQ where most of the common questions are answered already. Also, at the bottom of all the pages it says "Questions or comments? Contact the Wikimedia Foundation: donate@wikimedia.org". Posting here works too, but the other two options are the ones we prefer.

I hope this helps and thanks for trying to donate! Cbrown1023talk 19:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I talked with some other people and we think we found the error. Were you trying to put "$25" in the box? You don't need to put the dollar sign ($) when you enter your own amount, because the currency is defined in the drop-down box on the right. Just type "25" in and it should work. Let us know if you run into any other problems! Cbrown1023talk 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Donation replacement idea

You can provide privileged locked article for commercial enterprises. For example: lock the article about Coca-Cola on the Coca-Cola appointee so no one (except he/she) can edit it in any sense. And ask Coca-Cola to PAY for that privilege.

Not a good idea, these 'privileges' will eventually lead to Wikipedia being an advertising medium.

Grammatical error at Support Wikipedia/en

There is a grammatical error at the page currently linked to from the donation banner on Wikipedia. Under "FAQs," "We employ less than 30 people" should be "We employ fewer than 30 people" (less is only used for non-countable nouns--"less money" vs. "fewer dollars"). Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

More of a problem...

If you count, there's actually 31 members of staff listed (donation link says 'Where does my money go? People and technology. Even though Wikipedia is one of the top 5 most visited websites in the world, we employ fewer than 30 people.' Following the link, it says < 35) --129.234.252.67 11:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you balance keeping Wikipedia open with making it more reliable?

We believe increased participation makes Wikipedia better. At the same time, we must maintain the tough standards that have made Wikipedia respected by scientists, academics, journalists, and foundations.

- the link from 'tough standards' leads to a 'no article' page:

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Editorial oversight and control in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings."

Giant sitenotice on top of Dutch Wikipedia

This thing is huge! This giant banner is showing for all of wiki-NL. Please make it smaller. User:Kwiki on Dutch Wikipedia 85.223.108.141 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hit the "[Verbergen]" in the upper-right corner to make it smaller. Cbrown1023talk 02:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, but millions of wikinoobs don't. Anyways, I spoke about it on IRC and they convinced me this is the "correct" size, since it was the same size last year. I still think its way too big and I hope they can take it off soon; but now I know it is not a mistake (at first I thought it was a mistake because on my 24" screen at 1920x1200 it is 3cm by 45cm). I will hide it with CSS. 85.223.108.141 03:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not change the looks of your website

Hello,

I came to know that you gonna change the online foundation structure. Thus for you are wanting donations. You can do it obviously. But please do not change the layout of any of them. When we surfs net we noticed that each and every website has complicated designs, where as you guys have such a nice design which pleased our eyes. You may add functionality, but please please don't change the layout.

Regards,
Samik Dutta

Re: Donations Needed

Respected Foundation Representatives:

Thank you for putting a banner asking for donations at the top of the website pages. It brought it to my attention and gave a wonderful visual for what you have and what you need.

Please note - it is not enough. For the one inch x 5 inch space. You NEED more information or something to grab attention and ask for help!

People can set up automatic deductions from bank account straight to you. It's only a suggestion but its an important one. A person might not have 1 million dollars to donate, but they might have 1 to 5 dollars once a month for 12 months = $12 to $60 a year. Put in that light its doable and helpful.

It puts people in a long-term, pro-active state of help.

Why do I care to say this?

Wikipedia has tremendous flaws, but it is by the people, for the people and through the people. It is knowledge for everyone, with safety checks - eyewitnesses can correct anything or send a flag up if information is sufficient, yet not objective enough.

THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.

History has always been written by the victors, the politicians or the slanted.

I have come here to research for my movie script because military-based data bases have almost no footnotes and very little eye-witness balances.

Please use the Foundation Banner space in a better way - PLEASE.

I have not donated yet, I am still a starving student living on student grants and loans, but I will put it on my Christmas list. So Best Wishes

Ms. Heidi Von Dunker

Raising Funds

I'm sure this has been suggested already but, if the foundation needs funds then perhaps it could consider opening itself up to advertising. This could be entirely optional. Users who follow the link to donate could be given an option "Enable Ads". Cookies would allow that user to be displayed ads whenever they use wikipedia. This could be turned off at any time.
In terms of maintaining the integrity of the foundation, I'm sure that a set of guidelines could be established. These could ensure that advertising is not directed and that the foundation could be in no way considered to be taking donations from specific organisations. Perhaps give users a certain amount of control or establish an advertising "roulette" where ads could be displayed completely at random. While there are no doubt established issues in any kind of association with google there is no denying that tapping in to some of the massive revenue from google ads could raise significant funds.
Good luck with your fundraising, hopefully I will personally be in a position soon to make a specific monetary donation.

I would enjoy donating to Wikipedia by using an Advertising Version of the site, if only there was one. As long as that version clearly showed the link for the add free version, many might happily use it just to help fund this most glorious adventure of a website. It would not be objectionable since it's use was entirely voluntary.

David Ogilvie

Funding - attracting donations

If you need 6.6 Million dollars, have you considered having a Roll of Honour listing those individuals and organisations that have donated significant sums? (Or all donations?). I don't see one. Some people not currently donating might be willing to leave something in their will if they knew it would get their name up in 'perpituity'. They might even be moved to give something beforehand.

Thanks for sending in your feedback! We have two pages that serve that purpose, actually. The benefactors page lists all large donors from individuals and companies, while the contribution history page gives a list of all the donations we've received, the amount, date, and a public comment. Cbrown1023talk 21:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Support page error

No links on this page to enable placement on other websites - at least I could not find them. All I saw was "<a" and nothing in the drop down.

Why can't go to the bottom of this page and hit a "send" button!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, sorry for the trouble with this. It's actually a box with HTML code that you can copy to other websites. To reduce the confusion, we've made the box larger. Cbrown1023talk 01:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fundraiser - Dutch version - spelling mistake

At the top of the Dutch version of the fundraiser page it says "Meer mogelijkheide om te doneren vanuit buiten Nederland". "mogelijkheide" should be "mogelijkheden" (possibilities).

Donations

I might have considered a donation, if not the damn link from wikipedia WAS A JAVASCRIPT LINK - enough with this javascript crap! Insert REAL html links (href) not all this javascript - half the pages end up looking like crap if you don't happen to use the computer the author was using. --Werwrwer 04:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say my decision to donate/not donate was affected by this, but it was certainly rather annoying. 82.6.105.198 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fact #4: [...] the sum of all knowledge.

I didn't know this indeed, since most Wikipedias explicitly reject all but the most select pieces of knowledge - like, for example, not particularly notorious knowledge. The knowledge that there is a pink house on my street certainly qualifies for "the sum of all knowledge" but it does not qualify for Wikipedia. There are many other limitations that make the above statement extremely misleading. 82.6.105.198 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While the pink-house example is perhaps a bit impractical, I completely agree with the underlying point. I used to be among the top 20 most active contributors in ~2003-2004, but now I've given up trying to create new articles or adding any new facts on both English and German Wikipedia because they just always get deleted for no reason. A project purporting to collect the "sum of all knowledge" would naturally welcome any such contributions about actual real topics, but clealy Wikipedia is not about collecting the "sum of all knowledge". — Timwi 05:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only have the knowledge of those that make an input. If University scholars and a growing majority of college students refuse to use and input data here, then this online encyclopedia will never live up to it's dream. Wikipedia is controlled and mainly edited by a young male orientated target demographic of computer literate (mainly techy) people, this itself is the biggest issue concerning this encyclopedia. It causes it to be biased. Such an example can be seen from the level of detail shown under computer games and microchip articles, compare Halo (the computer game) to an article on 'floristry' (with thousands of years of history and background) and you can see how unbalanced everything is (please note: the Halo article is wonderful, my point is; that not all other articles go into that much LOD and they should). If Wikipedia is to live up to it's dream, it needs to employ specialists to improve this type of content, and not just recruit 1000 back bedroom computer orientated people.

Donations online - information transmission security?

I would have donated, but I saw no indication that the information submitted online would be transported over the Internet in a secure fashion.

Donations - transaction declined

Well I tried to donate, with my totally valid American Express card, only to have payment declined, with please try later. Get it together, my enthusiasm for making a donation is declining!

Donations - Donations via PayPal direct debit not accepted

Couldn't donate using PayPal direct debit. A lot of people who would like to donate are probably excluded because they don't own a credit card.

Wikipedia is getting a rep

The reason I won't give to such a wonderful idea is the biased rep Wikipedia is obtaining. You'd be surprised the comments I get when mentioning Wikipedia and the stories about how not to rely on it. Launch a thorough review by 3 sources. Extreme left, extreme right, extreme middle and review and publish fairly. I'd bet the donations would start piling in if you could demonstrate clearly that Wikipedia is indeed a search for truth.

For submitting donations, use Google Checkout option as well.

Some of us want to contribute, but do not have a Paypal account and are hesitant to give credit card information over the web.

Include Google Checkout as well for accepting donations

Some of us do not have Paypal accounts.. and are hesitant to give out credit card information.

Donations:

'I noticed you have set certain donation amounts next to your donation button. I have an idea that may improve the amount of your donations, the frequency of your donations, and the total numbers of persons willing to donate and actually donating. '

This is my idea:

In place of writing a set amount of money to donate next to the donation button, why not try this? Design one page with different donation amounts ranging from $1 to unlimited.

The donate button will have nothing written next to it. The donation button will simply say "Donate", and visitors who wish to donate can click on the "Donate" button. Clicking on the donation button will lead each visitor to a page containing the different donation amounts.

Clicking on the donations' button leads the visitor who wishes to donate to the donations' page. On reaching the donations' page,

the visitor immediately observes a short message on top that quietly trumphets wikimedia accomplishments,

-what wikimedia has acheived,

-and how wikimedia is helping the world today through its' informational, educational contributions.

-And the fact that all wikimedia asks is for visitors who like wikimedia and read wiki articles frequently,

-all wiki asks is for readers, visitors to voluntarily contribute from time time to help wiki continue in its' quest to educate, enlighten the world.

From the donations' page, visitors who wish to donate observe different donation amounts from $1 to unlimited. An unlimited donation amount is any amount a visitor wishes to physically type into a blank donation text box. To start the visitor donations rolling, the donations page presents to each visitor examples of donation amounts.

Example: $1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6, $7, $8, $9, $10, $11, $12, $13, $14, $14, and on listing donations in numerical amounts. The whole page is set up with checkboxes. Each checkbox has next to it a different donation amount. The donations count forward starting from $1 to $25. On reaching $25, The donation amounts are listing in multiples of $5 each.

Example: $25, $30, $35, $40, $45, $50, $55, $60 and on up to $100. On reaching $100, the donation amounts count forward starting from $100 to $200, in amounts of $10.

Example: Section three, has checkboxes counting donations in amounts from $200, to $300, counting in amounts of $20.

These sections continue, proceeding up to $1,000.00.

On reaching $1,000.00, A blank text box with a dollar sign next to it is contained in its' own section. Nothing else is contained in this last section, except this blank checkbox with a dollar sign next to it. The caption next to this blank checkbox says something like: "Select the amount you wish to donate, and type this amount into this donation box."

This final offer to donate allows visitors to choose their own donation amounts, down to the last penny.

I figure, this provides every visitor with all possible donation options, does not limit the amount of money donated, does not make little of any donation amount, and does not demand any set donation amount. This allows the visitor to choose.

Example,some visitors may be turned off by a request for $200, while other visitors can easily donate $200 and are turned off by a request for $20.The best strategy for gaining donations is to allow the visitor to choose their donation amount, by offering all possible donations choices.

I'd like to know wiki can continue, that wiki will never end.

Where money gone didn't explained at all in detail

"To people and technology. Even though Wikipedia and its sister projects are one of the top five most-visited websites in the world, we employ fewer than 35 people; see our staff overview. Roughly half work on technology, a small team supports our public outreach and volunteer cultivation activities, and the remaining staff work in fundraising and administration. In addition, your support helps to pay for the technology infrastructure (servers and bandwidth) that keep Wikipedia running and growing. Fundamentally, the Wikimedia Foundation exists to support and grow the enormous network of volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia and its sister projects -- more than 100,000 people around the world."

This is no explanation. It says it goes to technology and people. How much of it goes to people. How much it goes to technology. As detail, how much goes to server maintenance, buying new hardware, software, how much it goes to bandwidth etc. Explain and link in detail so we can have a clue. I know there were some reports for that. Also if the main issue is bandwidth there are various precautions wikipedia can take, to limit bandwidth and effort waste. Where or how we can share our opinions, and why I am not aware wikipedia ever asked opinions of its users in top banners like that. Kasaalan 11:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales - suggestion for "Increasing Donations"

Hey Jimmy -

I saw the Wiki (U.S.) Main Page now display some sample Donor info in the upper right...
(donor name, date, amount)

I'd like to suggest an idea to GET MORE DONATIONS!

- Display a "scrolling panel" in that same space... The movement will attract more eyeballs AND will give a sense of real activity... suggesting to some they should join in on the activity (of donating now).

- Fine tuning the concept, I would skip the date and roll the display with -

* Today's Donations *

Jack L. $10
Jane D. $19
Pierre T. $25

- Always have 3-5 names on the screen...
- either scroll and pause, or scroll continuously
- PLEASE do not use full names... It is disconcerting that one's name might be displayed
without their permission... and it adds nothing.

Well - hope this makes it to your desk for consideration...

Thanks and Best Regards.

Donald Lagasse

Spelling mistake at Support Wikipedia/fr

hi guys im a person that really feels hand tigh , when it comes to see you needing help, and i cannot offer it,i dont know , may be you can explain it to me , i dont get to see my country's money , in my country we use RD$ pesos dominicanos.from Dominican Republic.it is equivalent 36.00RD$ pesos = 1US$Dollar. if you put that, many people from my country will help you please help us to help you guys .. you guys deserve it you'll the best.

Donations Page

I donated today. I was suprised to see I could not pay in INR (Indian Rupee)! Not all people who'd like to contribute will have an International Card. Might be worth correcting. Keep up the great work! Thanks! .. Nana.

Regarding Development of on line payment of taxes

The site you have devlopped is fine.You have to improve the site
for payment of taxes like Property tax,Taptax etc
Details of on going works with detaild specifications
Complints : So as to give complaints on spoild roads.Sanitary
problems etc.For example the A.V.A.Road ,and The Nehru road are
badly damaged which are importent and main connecting roads
to Rajahmundry

Thanks

Thanks a lot for the prompt update of Jimmy's appeal in Macedonian! :) --B. Jankuloski 01:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

donation

I tried to donate via my VISA card and it was rejected. I use this card every day. The problem is with your site, not my credit card. Robert Humphrey

Just because we are accessing the website from The Netherlands, does not mean that we speak Dutch adn that we want to read the Jimmy Wales personal appeal in Dutch.
PLEASE MAKE IT AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH.

Thank you.

I agree with this strongly. It is typical of amateurish websites, and very irritating to many surfers, to assume that because you live in a particular country you must speak a particular language. Wikipedia is an international resource; all the Wikipedias have contributors from many countries, and the Wikimedia Foundation should know better than to make this stupid, hypernationalistic assumption, especially because it could alienate potential contributors. The banners, in more and more languages, are fine: but I wasn't on the French Wikipedia and my mother tongue isn't French, so why was I taken to Jimmy Wales's message in French? Andrew Dalby 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

once again im from Dominican Republic

once again im from dominican republic , i most people here would like to cooperate with you guys , but we cant , just for the simple reason that we don't see our money type displayed on the banner to make donations, we use RD$ means dominicans pesos .. if you put that i assure you a lot of peole here will donate .. and the same thing for other country's money type like ( florines, pesetas, francs) etc.. thanks...

hi

The lead-in to this says, "The comments you enter here are publicly viewable, editable, and deletable."

I can understand the first one, "viewable", and I can understand "editable", though less so... but "deletable"? Wouldn't that give everyone the power of veto over everyone else?

donation

Hello and thanks for supporting Wikimedia projects! I think the issue here is that you're putting "$15" in the box when all you need is "15" (the dropdown box to the right specifies the currency). I'm sorry for the confusion and I hope this helps. Cbrown1023talk 21:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Wales donation appeal...

Hi,

I would like to donate my page views to Wikipedia. Its time to consider banner ads on wikipedia. If it means that the ongoing survival of wikipedia, then I am happy to put up with a banner ad on the top of the page to help keep the site going. It would not stop me from using wikipedia, and I know it would help to ensure the ongoing survival of this valuable resource.

I know there would be howls of protest from die hard anit-advertising extremists, but the fact is one small banner ad at the top of the page is a small price to pay for the ongoing viability of this incredible resource, whilst ensuring its ongoing survival.

Hey, every other site on the web does it, I think people shouldn't be so precious and purist...

Cheers Mik.

Donations

I don't understand why you don't just accept advertising. That's what all the other sites do, including the New York Times. Is accepting advertising really so bad?? We don't mind.

Hi Jimmy,
Great work. Can only donate time. Any interest?

Ken Marefat
kenmarefat@ieee/org

Overzealous Administrators

Wikipedia seemed a good idea until overzealous ego driven administrator assistants began policing Wikipedia killing authentic sources. For me Wikipedia lost direction, which is a shame.

In spite of the appeal for donations, I will not be contributing money because I think the Wikipedia has a serious flaw, one that could be fairly easily remedied - that is, the ease of anonymous comments. Anyone can change anything and, while the changes can be tracked, the method is not intuitive or easy.

I made an alteration to one article, correcting a detail which I happened to have personal knowledge about, and was surprised at how easy it was.

I think Wikipedia would be well served by following fairly simple precautions. Have someone register and give an email, verify the email, and have a notation stating when an entry has been modified by a member of the community. In my mind, privacy is not involved - if you want to post an idea publicly, you should be willing to say who you are.

Respectfully,

Zvi the Fiddler
fiddlerzvi@att.net

Korean Appeal page has an error.

I'm the one of the contributors for translating Korean Appeal page, but after publishing, I found an error on the 'picture-text' of published Appeal page source. It has weird meaning and translated wrong from original version. As I don't have an account for Wikifoundation, I request someone who has one to modify the 'picture-text' as same as the sentence
on Korean appeal page, "지구상의 모든 사람들이 인류의 모든 지식에 자유롭게 접근할 수 있는 세상을 상상해 보십시요.". --Naturehead 04:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I live in Singapore, and in-line with several other comments, I was not able to donate as my VISA card, which I use every day was not accepted. Administrators need to consider people living not in the US. It is even impossible to enter addresses of many countries within the format provided by Wikipedia. Addresses in many countries, Japan for example, are not done by street and number.

Template

typo

There is a grammatical mistake in the Hungarian Appeal in the sentence: "Ha ma hasznosnak találod, képzeld el mi mindent elérhetünk együtt 5, 10, 20 év alatt." Please replace "elérhetünk" with "érhetünk el" as in this case the "el" verb prefix should take its place after the actual verb. - Xbspiro 04:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Diversity...

I was considering donating to Wikipedia after seeing that it had come to personal appeals from Mr. Wales, then I looked at the foundations staff, board, and advisory board and as a non-white, non-Asian, person I really did not feel included. I find it hard to believe you guys couldn't find one token brownish person to be apart of the movement. However, I seriously doubt you bothered to look. I'm not implying you should just find some under-qualified minority just to put on the site, I just think that if your goal is to share all human knowledge with everyone you are going to need everyone's help at all levels. Maybe that just me though.

Donations

I cannot send you a donation even though -- for the most part -- the information you provide is both up to date and useful. Recently I have been trying to become more informed about the issue of global warming. I find many articles on the pro side but few if any on the upside of warming or even questioning the science. For example, I heard via other sources about a period a few hundred years ago when temperatures were warmer than recent years. This was referred to as the 'Medieval warming period' and appears to be rather well documented. There is no mention of this on your site. It would appear that there is not balanced info on this topic and it begs the question of bias on other issues of public concern.

Until there is more balance on this issue there will be no financial support from me

Spencer in Canada

WHY I WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE TO WIKIPEDIA

Mannie De Saxe, PO Box 1675, Preston South, Vic 3072, Australia
Some time ago I wished to place an article in Wikipedia on the Sydney Park AIDS Memorial Groves of which I am the originator and co-coordinator.
My entry was refused by Wikipedia on the grounds that I was not able to provide confirmation of my source material. As I was the founder of the project I did not have confirmation sources available but Wikipedia would have been able to confirm the information from such sources as Sydney City Council which administers Sydney Park if they had bothered to try. However they chose to refuse my entry and I chose to decide that I would have nothing more to do with Wikipedia. I was mortally offended that an open-source site would treat me in this manner.
The only reason I saw the appeal for funding support was because a friend sent us information about a particular item in Wikipedia. I make it a matter of principle not to look at anything there otherwise.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne, Australia, SPAIDS co-coordinator.

/* Comment in spanish about donations:

sería interesante que aunque wikipedia no sea comercial pagara regalias por consultar en sistema multinivel para autofinanciarse
It would be interesting to develop a multilevel system for auto-financing wikipedia, for example if I sign in with wikipedia I could participate in global sweepstakes for funds rising

my address: gmolanoruiz2000@gmail.com

/

Arabic Wikipedia

When ever I read one of Wikipedia pages that are written in Arabic, its totally unrealistic with very few scientific details, and totally away from facts that we need and as if it is directed for a retarded to read...why

On the other hand if it's written in English or French, it will be totally different, clear info wide expansion in details and facts

just went through the page of the CROW bird, in Arabic all it speaks about is a myth, an old Semitic myth, about Adam and so (NO FACTS)in the English page its is exposing full info about that bird in details as well explaining some historical facts and mythology

So what is wikipedia all about, transferring the information based on facts and international point of view or giving the info based on the local culture of the recipient.....Wikipedia should be unifying the knowledge of all the recipients what ever the language the speak or how they think...it should be exposing every one to the knowledge of others.

I loved wikipedia, but what I can see now is that it's just a tool to keep this world uglier, by keeping the advantage to the English speaking and dis considering the people that need the knowledge most, and I can imagine how it would be for other cultures that speak minor languages......

If you are not capable of publishing the truth...then English will be more than enough...other wise I will consider it just for the donations pool to be a bit larger

Of course I'm not logged in, Your system won't let me!

You have got a major factual error in your article abour Lord Monckton.
It says he is not a member of the British House of Lords.
He is.
There is NO edit tab at the top of the page.
There is no way to correct this mistake.
I have tried over and over again either to log in to my old account or to create a new one. Your system will not let me do so. It throttles every attempt. It won't e-mail me my old password, It won't allow me to select a new username or password. It blocks everything.
It seems designed only to waste people's tiome and circulate unreliable information.
WILL YOU PLEASE STOP RUNNING IT THIS WAY.
I think you are doing a lot of harm by circulating misinformation and then preventing people from editing it.

Fundraising

I dont mind giving. I'd like to see visually how much you are raising. Simple target vs running total would be fine
Thanks

--

My donation was refused (VISA card, trying to send CZK) - and it is for the second time I tried. But because Wikipedia is so damn useful and goog, I will persist :-) Going to send money via bank transfer - BUT PLEASE CHECK THE DONATION SERVICE, YOU MIGHT BE LOOSING DONNORS!

Jimmy Wales

MARRYYY MEEEEE. YOUZ A BALLLA.

automatically assuming i am Russian?

Good day Jimmy Page ( or whoever will read this comment)

while i was checking out a link on WIKI that was recommended i saw the plea of Jimmy on top of the page (in English). so i clicked it on and wanted to see what it is all about. And got to a russian language story... which i will not read. Not because i can not but out of principle. What is WIKI checking and how? I know myself i am in Russia and russian is the national language. But if i am in China, will i get a chinese language reply. MY mac is set up for english language and it is stated as such. So if WIKI is checking and tracking my computer it should know that. Or is it, because the lead comes from Russia, it is ASSUMED automatically that it must be a Russian on the other end. Not good enough....
with friendly greetings,
Benedikt Morak
Austrian Executive Chef, happens to work in Russia, but was also working in China,Indonesia,Georgia and Greece where i did NOT know the local language...

Jimmy Whales personal appeal

Dear Wiki staff,

Please create a button to make Jimmy's appeal facebook postable.

Thank you,
India

Just say no to reloigiosity

Jimmy,

For the last three years I've donated to the Wikipedia cause -- not a whole lot, as I am just a poor web-cartoonist, but I like the vision that Wikipedia represents.

But I won't be donating this year. And maybe not ever again. Why? Because you have allowed this otherwise wonderful site to be taken over as a propaganda arm for one side of the Global Warming/Climate Change controversy, thanks to your site administrator William Connolley. Balanced articles explaining all sides of this issue would be welcome, but Connolley has systematically dumped or edited-out anything that challenges his personal orthodoxy.

We need seekers of truth in charge of something like this, not true-believers.

When I hear that Connolley has been dumped, and see a good-faith effort to restore fairness and balance to Wikipedia articles, then I'll once again kick in what I can, and advise my friends who feel similarly to do the same thing.

--Scott Bieser

If you're saying this only because you've read the blog post know that it contains hyperbole and plain inaccuracies. Connolley isn't even an administrator any more, and he wasn't running again recently, either. Beyond that, I think arbitration tackled any other issues. -- Mentifisto 17:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Imagine a world where all information is fully controlled, censored and distributed by left-wing propagandists. Donate to Jimmy and his censors and make it a reality.

Too bad Wikipedia has such a liberal bias. I just can't rely on Wikipedia content anymore. Is George Saros part owner?

what language is this?

Donations

When I first read the appeal for donations I went to the entry for the current U.S. president to confirm that the Orwellian treatment of that subject is still in force. It clearly is, so at this point I would be no more likely to donate to Wiki than I would be to donate to the Democratic National Committee.

Donations from India

Hi,

Please enable a mechanism for donations in Indian currency. I would like to think a lot of Indians would love to donate and like one donor has already suggested here... not all will have the facility to pay in USD.

Thanks

Buttons unavailable

Good Morning:
When I tried to download the buttons at the bottom on the CEO's appeal, I got the message that "This Wiki does not exist" - very disappointing.
Please rectify ASAP! Best wishes for continued success!

Sorry, but which buttons are you talking about? What's the URL of the page where you are running into this issue? Also, Jimmy Wales is our founder and one of our board members, he's not our CEO. ;-) Our Executive Director, however, is Sue Gardner. Cbrown1023talk 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't donate because Wikipedia is not "for everyone" any more

I won't donate to Wikipedia because it is no longer a friendly place that "anyone can edit", as whatever you do, even if it is non-controversial, will be picked up by some petty pedant. You have to spend a very high proportion of your time on it to understand the rules that the obsessives have created.

And certain viewpoints are allowed to dominate and control. For instance it is completely impossible to get the article "Creation Science" changed so that it does not insult a large proportion of Americans, for instance, by accusing them of attempting to "disprove accepted scientific facts". Many of the people who are promoting Creation Science have degrees and jobs in scientific disciplines. They are not all unqualfied nutters.--PeterR 16:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Foundation and Facebook

I would have liked to share the personal appeal from founder Jimmy Wales on my Facebook NewsFeed, but the URL is too long.
You might want to create a SHARE button from that page in case people would like to help raise money to keep the Wikimedia vision alive.

donation

I am from India. Unable to make a donation because you accept credit cards only. In India only a fraction have credit cards. Pls open an office in India, making local money orders acceptable. That way, myself and more like me will be happy to contribute.

Donations

I tried to give a $50 donation but I don't want to give a lot of personal information to be used for further solicitations or to be shared with others. Too bad. Also, I don't agree to have my contribution share with other commercial interests. The stuff about re-users I don't understand and therefore don't agree to. Why not keep it simple?